MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1932157650 · doi:10.18433/j3xc7s

Quantitative Structure – Pharmacokinetics Relationships Analysis of Basic Drugs: Volume of Distribution

2015· article· en· W1932157650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zvetanka Zhivkova, Tsvetelina Mandova, Irini Doytchinova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacokineticsStepwise regressionVolume of distributionLipophilicityLinear regressionDistribution (mathematics)Regression analysisMathematicsPharmacologyComputer scienceEconometricsStatisticsChemistryMedicineStereochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The early prediction of pharmacokinetic behavior is of paramount importance for saving time and resources and for increasing the success of new drug candidates. The steady-state volume of distribution (VDss) is one of the key pharmacokinetic parameters required for the design of a suitable dosage regimen. The aim of the study is to propose a quantitative structure - pharmacokinetics relationships (QSPkR) for VDss of basic drugs. METHODS: The data set consists of 216 basic drugs, divided to a modeling (n = 180) and external validation set (n = 36). 179 structural and physicochemical descriptors are calculated using validated commercial software. Genetic algorithm, stepwise regression and multiple linear regression are applied for variable selection and model development. The models are validated by internal and external test sets. RESULTS: A number of significant QSPkRs are developed. The most frequently emerged descriptors are used to derive the final consensus model for VDss with good explanatory (r2 0.663) and predictive ability (q2LOO-CV 0.606 and r2pred 0.593). The model reveals clear structural features determining VDss of basic drugs which are summarized in a short list of criteria for rapid discrimination between drugs with a large and small VDss. CONCLUSIONS: Descriptors like lipophilicity, fraction ionized as a base at pH 7.4, number of cycles and fused aromatic rings, presence of Cl and F atoms contribute positively to VDss, while polarity and presence of strong electrophiles have a negative effect.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207